Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Allow me to start this request with a little praise. I love Dan Abnetts work! The Eisenhorn trilogy I thought was excellent. Ravenor was great. Mr Abnett knows how to weave an excellent tale, his exposition and build up are wonderful. I feel pulled into his stories and I want to finish the book as quiskly as I can can. I devour it like a madman. The gaunts Ghosts novels are creative mindfields waiting to blow up in the readers face. Gileads Blood left me wanting for more and more. I couldnt get enough and riders of the dead was much like that. I really got into it but I have come to find one thing wrong from my own opinion.
Some of his stories, not all mind you but some of them end very abruptly. Everything is packed up all nice and neat in about a page in a half.
The enemy Karl Reiner Vollen has been betrayed by his creator. He was fleshed out and created with such care with such devotion. He was interesting he was the Hans Gruber of bad guy fiction for me. But then he was snuffed with not so much as a word. In about a paragraph of writing the creation was ended. No grand ending battle, no story to it, no life within the death he was just killed because he hesitated. It seemed to me as it has in some of Mr. Abnetts other writings that he was tired of the story and decided to end it quickly. That is the only thing I can come up with to explain how the story ended the way it did. I think if Azyteen had a voice of his own he would complain too at his mistreatment. So I ask Mr. Abnett if he should see this please to explain to me why? Why did it end that way? I am a faithful reader and will continue to read his work and will continually tell others to read his books. He is a great author I just wish he would end a great story with a great ending as well.
Please if you have thoughts on this book or any of his other books I would love to discuss them.
How about e-mailing him?
I kill two dwarves in the morning, I kill two dwarves at night. I kill two dwarves in the afternoon, and then I feel allright. I kill two dwarves in time of peace, and two in time of war. I kill two dwarves before I kill two dwarves, and then I kill two more.
Goblin kroozade of revengyness: win:19 draw:10 loss:9
I think the point of the Vollen's ignoble and passive death was two fold. First, it should show the hubris of Chaos was going to be its downfall. Vollen's meteoric rise and great blessings caused Vollen to think that he was powerful in the scheme of things and no longer subject to the cares of mortals. Notice how Abnett transform Vollen from a brooding thoughtful man into an aloof champion. He is shocked that his foresight failed him but he realizes this with bemused attachment. His sudden rise to power prevents makes him take it for granted and therefore prevents him from taking the situation as seriously as he should, a bit unbelieving that his former comrade in arms could possibly pose such a threat. Secondly, it exhibits why Chaos and the forces of evil will fail in the end. Chaos is inherently self defeating. Tzeentch is a fickle God who will in the end betray or has betrayed all his followers. Or maybe I just read too into it.
â€œCry â€˜Havocâ€™ and let slip the dogs of war!â€? - Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene I
Thats not bad Bawd Monkey and defenitely could be a reason as such but I just beleived it should be there in the writing. You read into the ending your own ending of the book which is great. I would just like to see him write the ending that would be as grand as his story.